.... that foreign policy some how changed in America when George Bush was elected or 9/11 occured, or the now popular stance that America was somehow at peace during the Clinton years. Or the ever prevaltant myth that Democrats and Republicans are, you know, different. A short, two minute John Stossel clip from the 90's (aka the Clinton years) showing quite the opposite. And who's that lone man speaking truth in the face of the mainstream tide?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
"And who's that lone man speaking truth in the face of the mainstream tide?"
Oooo....pick me, pick me, I know!! It's that loony tune Ron Paul! =) I like John Stossel, did you blog about him before? I remember watching him when I was younger and stuff on 20/20.
You know, the more I see of Ron Paul, the more I like him. He might actually be that ONE politician that isn't bought and paid for!
As for John Stossel...I've always liked his reports!
Crystal,
Yeah, I've talked about John Stossel before. He's one of the few reporters in the mainstream who doesn't worship State power.
Tshsmom,
I think if you keep listening, you'll like him even more. :)
Thanks for visiting. I don't necessarily like John Stossel. I've been waching him for a long time and I think he could be a harder-hitting reporter if he chose. It's been a while, though, so I should start watching him again. I agree that Democrats and Republicans aren't any different, and it's nice to know I'm not the only one who feels that way. I hope to see you again soon.
not that it has anything to do with this specific post, but in general your perspectives have gained you a new reader. The only big point of contention I have with this site is...The White Sox...Go Cubs. Seriously, good work here, man.
United, I'm always up for national political introspection so if that's the kind of stuff you've got there often I'll probably be around.
S. Holster, thanks for the kind words. I'm kinda wondering how you found the place or what it is you like but please do keep coming. Like most bloggers I'm always up for more readers.
And sorry about the White Sox love, but I like Major League baseball better than the Minors.
"And sorry about the White Sox love, but I like Major League baseball better than the Minors."
el oh el!!! Tee hee, tee ha...ya.
*cough*
Of course foreign policy changed in the US with the events of 9/11, you just have to ask the rest of the world about that, ie: those on the receiving end of said foreign policy.
As for being at peace during Clinton years, anyone who makes wild generalisations on the matter is an asshat but clearly, in terms of long-term conflict originated in aggressive foreign policy tactics Bush jnr has won that hands down.
Neo-conservative agendas that powered a lot of the intellectual deabate behind the current GOP movement have always made clear their foreign policy and how it was aimed at a more exspansionist and imperial idea of the US as the world's policemen; it also centred on developing strategic bases across the globe to preserve the hegemony.
How come I know this and I don't live in your country?
Guy with three names,
I know you, you're the guy who goes around all my friends' blogs and tells everyone how awesome you are because you bought a big fancy house.
Good for you, kiddo.
I've already written about the Neo-Cons and their agenda back a few months ago. I'm not trying to make the case here that the Neo-Cons or George Bush are better than Clinton or whatever.
What I want is peace. What I want is a non-interventionist foreign policy.
Clinton didn't give those things, nor did any president we've had here since before Woodrow Wilson, when we decided to start making the World safe for democracy. That's been our foreign policy for 90 years, and no it did not start with the Neo-Cons. They may have sparked a more intentional approach to the goal, but the fundamental policy has not changed.
Nor will it when Gore/Clinton/Obama take office in '09.
Thanks for stopping by.
found you through the endless chain of comment box links. (kinda like string theory, all these little 'tubes' leading from one universe to another. What I dig about the way you go about your posts is that you can be topical without coming off as a pontificant, a 'calm' writing style. Also appreciate anyone who bothers to do the homework and cite the sources instead of just wailing from the mountaintop of accusation and out of context snippery/snipery. Anyway, just wanted to answer the questions asked, there's a day to tackle...
Scott: I also want peace but not at the expense of what we started. I however don't want the Western world to stick it's head up it's won ass into the non-interventionist nightmare that only leads one way: the current selective non-interventionist nightmare.
The way forward is not pretending the rest of the world isn't there, it's realising that we are part of the rest of the world and to do our bit.
Yeah, that's what the Democrats are saying now. Get back to what our foreign policy was after WWII and before Bush and all that. Seems to me that's exactly the foreign policy that got us into this mess to start with. And one that already has pretty much isolated us from the rest of the World.
I'm not advocating isolationism, I'm advocating non-interventionism. I don't mind trading and setting up shop around the World; I'd love to see us trading with Iran right now freely. What I don't want is my government going around the World installing bases, building nations, funding regimes, manipulating so called "free trade", or generally policing the World.
America did have a proud and long history of a genuine, global foreign policy; you believe that to have got into all the trouble its in but that is clearly not true.
The current malaise is a reflection of the current foreign policy.
You can't have a non-interventionist foreign policy; it's politically very naive and all that ends up happening is when intervention it required it's done in a bulyl boy fashion because any successful foreign policy will have to include some level of intervention.
A country can't stick it's head in the sand when others are in need.
America did have a proud and long history of a genuine, global foreign policy; you believe that to have got into all the trouble its in but that is clearly not true.
The current malaise is a reflection of the current foreign policy.
Ah, so that would be the current foreign policy that started, as you say, with the Neo-Cons. They came into power when? With George Bush in 2000? So the attacks on 9/11 less then two years later were an effect of 18 or so months of the Neo-Cons bullying the World around. What about the attacks in '93 on the WTC?
What about the countless military exercises we've been involved in?
-Operation Uphold Democracy in Haiti
-NATO bombing in Serbia
-Periodic bombing of Iraq throughout the 90's
-Operation Infinite Reach
-Operation Restore Hope in Somalia
-Operation Desert Shield
-Operation Desert Storm
-Operation Just Cause in Panama
-Air strikes on the Philippines in '89
-The Andean Initiative in Colombia, Bolivia, and Peru
-The First and Second Gulf of Sidra Incidents with Libya
-Operation Golden Pheasant
-Operation Praying Mantis
-Operations Earnest Will and Prime Chance
-Air strikes in Bolivia in '86 to support our War on Drugs
-Operation El Dorado Canyon
-The shooting down of two Iranian jets by the Suadi’s with the aid of US intelligence in ‘84
-Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada
-The Multinational Force in Lebanon in ‘82
I mean this is what the American Army DOES.
And that’s just in the 80’s and 90’s. I could go on and list an equal number of items from the 60’s and 70’s. And that doesn’t even count the big FUBARs like Vietnam, Korea, or the mother of all foreign policy screw ups, World War 1. Nor does it include the non-military adventures of the CIA and their unknown number of clandestine operations throughout the World.
Nor does it include more than a half century of forein aid to Africa, which has not only NOT helped the contineent, but rather seen it regress. And no one stops to think that the aid may be a hinderance rather than a benefit. We just give more and more and more.
None of this is new. None of it. It’s not new with Bush and it’s not new with the Neo-Cons.
As far as your numerous “head in the sand” comments you’ve made, it’s a nice straw man you’re pummeling there but no one is suggesting that. There’s a difference between non-intervention and isolation.
The current regime took the past methods and amplified them beyond a degree many of us thought possible, simple as that. This provoked further extreme action.
I am worried with your tagging on of the comment on aid to Africa, no idea why you felt the need to through that old chestnut in but also concerns me when peopel bring that up; it's a mix of racism, isolationism and a severe lack of understanding regarding the geo-political situation in Africa.
It wouldn't need so much aid of it's post-colonial history had been better handled by the European powers and various un-democractic regimes has not been sponsored by Western powers and the WB and IMF had not got it's private funding claws into the fiscal systems of many nations.
I'd leave Africa out of this, as the US doesn't give that much and Israel gets the most...
Further extreme than 9/11? All right brother.
You've got me tagged, btw. I'm a racist, ignorant, isolationist. Good thing for the Africans there has been good natured interventionist like you with a total understanding of the geo-political situation in Africa there aiding them for 60 years.
It's gone so well for them.
Post a Comment